book.1 In several cases an attempt has been made to secure a monopoly in a title by registration before the book was published or even written.2 Such registration is entirely inoperative to secure a monopoly in the title or the right to sue in respect of the copyright in the book when published. Registration does not give the plaintiff any right (except perhaps as to delivery of copies) which he would not equally have had without registration. All registration does is to perfect the right and give a title to sue on it.

It must be remembered that it is the book which is to be registered and not the copyright. It is common but erroneous to talk of "registering copyright." The distinction was pointed out in Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough. The three several proprietors of three periodicals had employed and paid a contributor under section 18 on the terms that the matter contributed should belong to these three proprietors. The matter appeared in each of the three newspapers and each registered his own newspaper in his own name. It was argued that the registration was bad, since they should have been registered as joint proprietors, but the Court of Appeal held that the registration was good, since each had registered his "book," and section 19 was literally complied with.

6

A newspaper is a sheet of letterpress within the Act and must be registered. In one case Malins, V.C., protected a newspaper which was not registered, but that case has been expressly overruled and is clearly unsound. No registration is necessary other than that required by the Act of 1842. In Cate v. Devon it was contended that a newspaper would not be protected unless it had been registered under the Newspaper Libel Act, 1881. This contention was held erroneous, and registration under the Act of 1842 was alone required. Similarly

1 Henderson v. Maxwell (1877), 5 Ch. D., 892; Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76.

2 Hogg v. Maxwell (1866), L. R., 2 Ch., 307; Correspondent v. Saunders (1865), 11 Jur. (N.S.), 540; Primrose Press v. Knowles (1886), 2 T. L. R., 404.

Talbot v. Judges (1887), 3 T. L. R., 398; Schove v. Schmincké (1886), 33 Ch. D., 546. 4 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

5 Walter v. Howe (1881), 18 Ch. D., 708; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425; Cate v. Devon (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

6 Cox v. Land and Water (1869), L. R., 9 Eq., 324.

7 Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., 425.

8 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500; see also Prowett v. Mortimer (1856), 2 Jur. (N.S.), 414.

it is not a good defence to an action for infringement that the publisher's name and address is not printed on the first or last page of a book as required by 2 & 3 Vict. c. 12.1

The Requisite Entry.-Registration is made in the Book of Registry which the Act enacts 2 shall be kept at the Hall of the Stationers' Company. The fee for registration is five shillings. The Book of Registry must at all convenient times be open to the inspection of any person on payment of one shilling for every entry searched for or inspected. This, however, does not entitle any one to make a copy of an entry; but any one may demand a certified copy of an entry from the keeper of the Registry on payment of five shillings.

The proprietor of the copyright must register in the Book of Registry:3

i. The title.

ii. The time of first publication.

iii. The name and place of abode of the publisher.

iv. The name and place of abode of the proprietor.

In the case of an encyclopædia, review, magazine, periodical work, or other work published in a series of books or parts, the publisher must register : *—

i. The title.

ii. The time of first publication of the first part.

iii. The name and place of abode of the proprietor.

iv. The name and place of abode of the publisher if different from the proprietor.

The Actual Title.-This must be registered: a description of the book will not be sufficient, even although accurate. Thus in Harris v. Smart" the plaintiffs' book was intituled "Illustrated Catalogue and Price List," and they registered it as "Illustrated Book of Shop-fittings." The Court of Appeal, reversing the decision of Mathew and Grantham, JJ., held that the objection to the registration was fatal. When there is a clear and distinct. title, that title they held must be registered. It might be different if a book had no title; perhaps such a book could not be registered at all; but probably a description of the book, stating that

1 Chappell v. Davidson (1856), 18 C. B., 194. See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 24.

2 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. II.

4 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45., sec. 19.

3 5 & 6 Vict. c. 45, sec. 13.

5 (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.

D

it had no title, would be sufficient. In Collingridge v. Emmott2 the plaintiff's newspaper was intituled "Warehousemen and Drapers' Trade Journal and Review of the Textile Fabric Manufacturers"; but it was registered as "Warehousemen and Drapers' Trade Journal: Failures and Arrangements." Kay, J., thought that the discrepancy was fatal to the registration.

It has been questioned whether in the case of a volume, a considerable part of which, being old matter, is not entitled to copyright, and which is published under one comprehensive title, there must not be some indication on the book itself or on the register that the owner does not claim copyright in the whole work. The point has never been definitely decided. It has been held that one who adapts new words and music to an old air and describes himself proprietor of the whole composition is entitled to protection; but the question raised in these cases was whether the author was entitled to copyright at all unless he could show that the whole was original. It should always be remembered in questions of this kind that the purpose of registration is not, as has frequently been suggested in argument, to notify to an intending copyist what he may copy and what he may not. In Cate v. Devon the plaintiffs had published a "Commercial Compendium," containing lists of bankruptcies and bills of sale. They reprinted several copies of it under another title, viz. "The London Association for the Protection of Trade," and it was issued "privately and confidentially" to that association. The defendants copied matter from the latter issue and pleaded that it was unregistered, and therefore that they were entitled to copy it. North, J., held that the act of the defendants was an infringement of copyright in the "Commercial Compendium," which was registered under that title. In his judgment he said :—

"It is not intended that there should always be complete registration of the publication in which there is copyright in order that persons may know what they may legitimately copy and what they cannot copy. The

1 Per Coleridge, L.C.J., in Harris v. Smart (1889), 5 T. L. R., 594.

2 (1887), 57 L. T. (N.S.), 864.

3 Lover v. Davidson (1856), 1 C. B. (N.S.), 182; Leader v. Purday (1848), 7 C. B., 4; Chappell v. Sheard (1855), 2 K. and J., 117. 4 (1889), 40 Ch. D., 500.

Act itself contains provisions which make that clear. It is well known that registration is only necessary as a condition precedent to suing, and the almost universal practice on the part of large publishers notoriously is that they do not register until just on the eve of taking some proceeding. Then they take care to register their copyright and sue upon it. I think, therefore, that the contention that the defendants have not been warned by registration of the title under which the document appears is one which cannot be entertained."1

The Time of First Publication.-This must be exactly entered to the day of the month. In Low v. Routledge an entry of "23rd May 1864" was held to be bad when the actual publication was on the 25th of May 1864.3 Under the International Copyright Act, 1844, an entry of the year only was held to be fatal, and under the Copyright Act of 1842 it has been held in two cases that an entry of the month only is bad. When a subsequent edition of a book is published, in so far as it is a reprint of the first edition, it will not be protected unless the first edition and the date of the first publication thereof is entered on the register; in so far as it consists of new matter there must be an entry bearing the date of the publication of the edition in which such new matter was first published; but the previous editions and the date of their respective publications do not require to be entered in order to protect the new matter, and subsequent editions do not require to be entered in order to protect old matter. Where a book has been revised and altered as each new edition has come out, every edition should be entered separately in the register, with the date of the publication of such edition. When a story, or article, or serial story, or a series of articles is published in a magazine or other periodical, the proprietor of the magazine need only register the first number of the magazine and the date of the publication thereof in order to entitle him to sue.10 If, however, the action is at the instance.

1 40 Ch. D., at p. 506.

3 As to what is publication, see p. 38.

2 (1864), 10 L. T. (N.S.), 838.

4 Wood v. Boosey (1867), L. R., 3 Q. B., 223.

5 Mathieson v. Harrod (1868), L. R., 7 Eq., 270; Collingridge v. Emmott (1887), 57 L. T. (N.S.), 864; and see Page v. Wisden (1869), 20 L. T. (N.S.), 435; Maxwell v. Hogg (1867), L. R., 2 Ch., 307.

6 Thomas v. Turner (1886), 33 Ch. D., 292.

7 Murray v. Bogue (1852), 1 Drew, 353; Hayward v. Lely (1887), 56 L. T. (N.S.), 418.

8 Maple v. Junior Army and Navy Stores (1882), 21 Ch. D., 369.

9 Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

10 Henderson v. Maxwell (1876), 4 Ch. D., 163.

of the author of a contribution to a collective work against third parties, the proper registration would be of the story or article only with the date of the first publication in the collective work of such story or article, or if serial, of the first part thereof.1 Against the proprietor, for publishing separately without permission, the author does not require to be registered, as the right sued on is not one of copyright but presumably of implied. contract. If the owner of the periodical has acquired the entire copyright in a story or article, he can sue on a registration either of the first number of the magazine or of the first part of the story or article.3

The Name and Place of Abode of the Publisher.—The publisher to be entered is the first publisher of the book. No subsequent publisher, unless of a revised edition, need be entered on the register. If the publishers are a firm it is sufficient to enter their firm name, such as Newby & Co.; the individual names of the members of the firm need not be entered. A publisher's ordinary place of business describes sufficiently his "place of abode": his private residential address need not be entered."

The Name and Place of Abode of the Proprietor.—The proprietor to be entered is the proprietor at the time of registration, and it is unnecessary to trace his title from the first proprietor.8 The joinder of the unregistered proprietor as co-plaintiff with a person who has been erroneously registered, or who, being rightly registered, is no longer proprietor, will not render an action for infringement of copyright maintainable. It is not sufficient to register a mere agent or nominee of the proprietor.10 The registered proprietor, however, if legal owner, may sue as trustee for the equitable owner of the copyright." If the plaintiff

1 Johnson v. Newnes [1894], 3 Ch., 663.

2 Mayhew v. Maxwell (1860), 1 J. and H., 312.

3 Dicks v. Yates (1881), 18 Ch. D., 76; Trade Auxiliary v. Middlesborough (1889), 40 Ch. D., at p. 434.

4 Bacon, V.C., in Coote v. Judd (1883), 23 Ch. D., 727.

5 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

6 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247; Rock v. Lazarus (1872), L. R., 15 Eq. 104;

Macmillan v. Suresh Chunder Deb (1890), Ind. L. R., 17 Calc., 951.

7 Nottage v. Jackson (1883), 11 Q. B. D., 627; 49 L. T. (N.S.), 339.

8 Weldon v. Dicks (1878), 10 Ch. D., 247.

9 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., 291.

10 Petty v. Taylor [1897], 1 Ch., 465.

11 London Printing v. Cox [1891], 3 Ch., per Lindley, L.J., at pp. 301 and 302.